Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:18:42 -0800, "George
Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Cade is clearly looking for and finding
controversy. The Register thrives
on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to
people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the
project.
However, it's a logical fallacy to go from there to where several
admins seem to be on various related articles lately (e.g., [[Gary
Weiss]]), where they're dismissing all concerns that are in any way
related to those mentioned in that article, even when brought up by
perfectly rational, non-sociopathic, non-banned editors.
If mapped out in outline, the line of argument seems to go:
1) Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the
Weiss article is non-NPOV]
2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser.
3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false.
4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of
hand.
This does not follow logically.
AKA the ad hominem fallacy: Just because an asshole said it doesn't mean
it's incorrect; assholes can still be right.